jr  a 


N,  YORK, 


ov 


THE  SLAVE  QUESTION,  AND  THE  POSITION  OF  PARTIES. 


Tdeliveree 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  AUGUST  17,  1852. 


Washington 

Printed  at  the  congressional  globe  office. 

1852. 


.1 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/speechofhonmschoOOscho 


THE  SLAVE  QUESTION,  &c 


The  House  being  in  the  Committeof  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union — 

Mr.  SCHOONMAKER  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  A  few  days  since  we  heard  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Faulkner]  define 
his  position  on  the  presidential  question,  and  give 
to  the  country  his  reasons  for  withholding  his  sup- 
ort  from  the  Whig  nominee  for  the  Presidency, 
desired,  at  the  time,  to  reply  to  a  portion  of  his 
remarks,  but  failed  to  procure  the  floor.  Had  the 
gentleman  confined  himself  to  a  consideration  of 
the  views  of  General  Scott  upon  the  compromise 
measures,  and  of  his  qualifications  for  the  Presi¬ 
dency,  I  probably  should  not  have  felt  called  upon 
to  say  a  word  in  reply.  But,  sir,  when  I  hear 
the  Whig  party  of  my  State,  of  which  party  I 
cJaim  to  be  an  humble  member,  repudiated,  and 
their  support  of  the  Whig  nominee  put  forth  as 
the  ground  why  General  Scott  should  not  receive 
the  support  of  other  Whigs,  I  feel  bound  to  say 
a  word  in  reply.  And  again,  sir,  when  I  hear 
the  cry  of  censure  and  condemnation  unjustly 
raised  against  one  of  the  distinguished  represent¬ 
atives  of  my  native  State,  in  the  other  wing  of 
this  Capitol,  [Mr.  Seward,]  I  would  do  injustice 
to  that  State  by  keeping  silence.  1  therefore  now 
ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  for  a  few  mo¬ 
ments. 

The  gentleman,  [Mr.  Faulkner,]  in  his  intro¬ 
ductory  remarks,  for  the  purpose,  probably,  of 
smoothing  his  way  to  new  and  more  congenial  1 
associations,  speaks  of  the  old  issues  between  the 
two  great  political  parties  as  having  passed  away, 
and  yielded  to  another  class  of  questions  relating 
wholly  to  the  slavery  issue.  He  says  “the  tariff 
‘  policy,  looking  to  protection  as  its  primary  and 
*  leading  object,  is  now  without  an  advocate  in  the 
‘country.”  Upon  that  point,  sir,  he  may,  for 
aught  1  know  to  the  contrary,  speak  the  sentiments 
of  a  portion  of  the  Whigs  of  Virginia,  but  they 
are  not  the  sentiments  of  the  Whigs  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  FAULKNER.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
New  York  allow  me  to  inquire  whether  my  view 
of  the  present  position  of  parties,  in  reference  to 
the  tariff  policy,  is  not  fully  borne  out  by  the  action 
tional  Whig  Convention  of  Baltimore? 

O 


Mr.  SCHOONMAKER.  I  do  not  recollect  the 
precise  character  of  the  tariff  resolution  passed  at 
that  Convention.  But  I  deny  the  right  of  a  body 
of  men,  assembled  with  power  only  to  nominate 
candidates,  to  determine  what  shall  or  what  shall 
not  be  the  doctrines  of  the  Whigs  of  the  Union. 
An  appointment  to  perform  one  duty,  gives  them 
no  power  to  usurp  another. 

Mr.  FAULKNER.  Then  1  understand  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  to  repudiate  the  plat¬ 
form  of  principles  announced  by  that  Convention  ? 

Mr.  SCHOONMAKER.  I  deny  the  authority  of 
that  Convention  to  determine  the  creed  or  principles 
of  the  Whig  party.  The  Whigs  of  the  Union  have 
still,  and  I  trust  ever  will  have,  inscribed  upon  their 
banner  and  sustain  among  their  leading  principles, 
protection  to  American  industry.  They,  sir,  claim 
that  the  great  interests  of  our  country — the  agricul¬ 
tural,  the  mechanical,  the  manufacturing,  and  the 
commercial — are  mutually  dependent  upon  each 
other;  that  whatever  tends  to  promote  the  succesr 
or  paralyze  the  interests  of  the  one,  will  earlier  o 
later  have  a  like  effect  upon  the  other;  and  that, 
therefore,  the  protection  of  our  manufacturing,  iron, 
and  other  interests,  by  adequate  impost  duties, 
would  add  to  the  prosperity  and  promotion  of  all 
the  interests  of  the  country.  Such  protection 
would  not  only  drive  the  spindle  and  the  loom, 
heat  the  forge  and  propel  the  trip-hammer,  but 
would  nerve  and  give  employment  to  the  arm  of 
the  laborer,  the  mechanic,  and  the  artisan;  provide 
consumers  and  a  market  for  the  productions  of 
our  farmers  and  agriculturists,  give  increased  em¬ 
ployment  to  our  commerce,  create  a  home  compe¬ 
tition,  call  forth  and  give  activity  to  the  inventive 
genius  of  our  citizens,  and  in  the  end  reduce  the 
price  and  cost  of  the  manufactured  articles  far  be¬ 
low  the  standard,  when  alone  dependent  for  sup¬ 
plies  upon  foreign  monopolists.  And  claiming 
this,  the  Whigs  insist,  that  government,  instituted 
for  the  protection  of  the  people,  as  well  in  their 
individual  as  their  corporate  capacity — as  well  in 
their  property,  industry,  and  ingenuity,  as  irt  their 
lives  and  liberty,  is  under  solemn  and  imperative 
obligations  to  sustain  by  a  protective  tariff  th  e 
manufactures  and  productions  of  our  people  and 


our  country  against  the  ruinous  competition  of  ; 
the  pauper  labor  and  overgrown  monopolies  of 
Europe.  Sir,  that  is  Whig  doctrine;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Democratic  doctrine  is  tariff 
for  revenue  to  aid  the  Government,  not  for  protec¬ 
tion  to  benefit  the  governed. 

Neither  is  the  internal-improvement  issue  among 
the  things  that  have  been.  That  issue  still  divides 
the  two  great  parties.  The  Whigs,  on  the  one  hand, 
claim  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  | 
make  liberal  and  necessary  appropriations  for  the 
improvement  of  our  harbors,  lakes,  and  rivers, 
and  for  the  development  of  the  resources  of  the 
country.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  our  oppo¬ 
nents  read  in  the  organic  law,  inscribed  as  with  a  i 
pen  of  iron,  and  the  point  of  a  diamond,  a  prohibi¬ 
tion  against  the  appropriation  of  money  for  any  | 
such  purpose,  unless  it  operates  for  the  protection 
and  accommodation  of  foreign  commerce. 

Neither  is  the  issue  in  relation  to  the  public 
lands  wholly  obsolete,  as  between  the  two  great 
political  parties.  The  Whigs  still  claim  and  in¬ 
sist  upon  the  policy  and  duty  of  the  distribution 
of  their  proceeds,  and  equalization  of  their  bene¬ 
fits.  While  the  Democracy  repudiate  such  doc¬ 
trine,  and  shelter  themselves  against  the  unan¬ 
swerable  arguments  in  favor  of  its  expediency, 
and  justice,  by  a  denial  of  constitutional  power. 
In  this  instance,  as  in  all  others,  the  Constitution 
and  constitutional  power  being  ever  foremost  and 
ready,  on  the  lips  of  the  Democracy,  to  justify  a 
denial,  and  neglect  of  the  proper  rights  and  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  people. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia,  after  having  sum¬ 
marily  disposed  of  the  old  issues  between  the  two 
great  political  parties,  appears  most  strangely  to 
settle  upon  the  conviction  that  the  principle  of  sla¬ 
very  itself  is  not  only  in  question  now,  but  that 
it  is  the  only  issue.  And  instead  of  looking  upon 
that  question  as  totally  and  finally  settled  and  ad¬ 
justed  by  the  so-called  compromise  acts,  those 
acts  pass  for  nothing,  and  he  raises  the  slavery 
issue  anew  by  demanding  guarantees  of  their  final¬ 
ity,  and  oaths  of  fealty  to  the  principles  of  sla¬ 
very  itself,  and  makes  the  yielding  to  this  new 
demand  the  test  of  orthodoxy  in  the  Whig  party 
of  the  Union.  Not  content  with  the  fact  that  the 
laws  are  passed,  and  that  the  country  has  acqui¬ 
esced  in  them,  he  even  insists  that  those  who  ; 
questioned  the  wisdom  of  those  measures  shall 
come  up  and  confess  that  the  laws  are  the  perfec¬ 
tion  of  human  wisdom,  or  he  will  hold  no  further 
political  communion  with  them.  Man,  sir,  can¬ 
not  be  so  easily  forced  to  acknowledge  himself  to 
have  been  in  the  wrong  when  he  acted  under  the 
dictates  of  an  honest  heart  and  conscientious  obli¬ 
gations,.  In  our  system,  an  admission  of  the  jus¬ 
tice  or  expediency  of  a  measure  is  not  essential  to 
an  honest  acquiescence  in  it  practically.  Every 
act  of  Congress,  of  aLegislature,  of  a  court,  every 
election,  is  a  triumph  of  a  majority  over  a  minor¬ 
ity;  the  minority  always  acquiesces,  never  con¬ 
fesses;  it  raises  the  issue  again  whenever  it  sees 
fit,  and  ean  do  so  constitutionally,  by  appeal  or 
reconsideration. 

Thus,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and 
those  who  think  with  him,  press  forward  the 
slavery  question  again,  as  the  main  and,  in  fact, 
the  only  issue  for  national  politics.  Has  the  gen¬ 
tleman  counted  the  cost  of  such  doctrines?  Has  he 
reflected  upon  what  must  be  the  legitimate  and  in¬ 


evitable  result  to  arise  from  the  prevalency  of  his 
views?  If  he  has  not,  let  us  for  a  moment  reflect 
upon  it.  We  have  now,  at  the  North,  the  great 
bulk  of  the  people  divided  into  two  great  parties 
upon  questions,  some  of  a  national,  and  others  of 
a  local  character,  irrespective  and  independent  of 
any  issue  on  the  subject  of  slavery".  I  have 
already  adverted  to  the  doctrines  of  protection, 
internal  improvements,  and  the  disposition  of  the 
public  lands,  as  being  some  of  the  great  questions 
upon  which  they  are  thus  divided.  There  are 
many,  and  their  number  is  not  small  in  any  of 
the  free  States,  who  are  in  sentiment  opposed 
to  slavery;  but  making  no  party  issue  of  it,  they 
remain  and  act  with  one  or  the  other  of  such  great 
political  parties.  The  liberty  and  anti-slavery 
organizations  of  the  North,  being  small  and  lim¬ 
ited  in  numbers  and  extent,  present  no  sufficient 
appearance  of  strength  and  prosperity  to  induce 
men  to  break  from  their  old  party  allegiance  to 
form  new  associations,  in  the  hope  of  advancing 
even  the  cause  of  freedom  and  humanity.  The 
old  parties  are  practical  parties,  dealing  with  ex¬ 
isting  practical  interests.  Those  new  parties  would , 
if  successful,  be  agitating  and  disturbing  parties, 
devoted  to  the  uprooting  of  slavery,  irrespective  of 
all  other  existing  practical  interests.  Dangerous 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question  by  men  retaining 
their  allegiance  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  great 
political  parties,  is  stifled  and  kept  in  subjection, 
by  reason  of  the  generality  and  complex  variety  of 
the  party  issues,  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
them. 

But,  sir,  let  us  annihilate  those  great  parties. 
Let  us  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia — make  the  slavery  issue  the  only 
test  for  national  politics,  and  call  upon  the  free 
voters  of  the  North,  without  reference  to  any  other 
question,  to  rank  themselves  on  the  one  side  or  the 
other  of  the  slavery  issue:  what  think  you  would 
then  become  of  the  anti-slavery  and  liberty  parties 
of  the  North? — parties  whose  very  life  and  exist¬ 
ence  depend  upon  the  slavery  question — parties 
which  feed,  grow,  and  fatten  upon  such  agitation? 
Yes,  what  would  become  of  these  parties,  if  the 
old  ligaments  which  respectively  bind  the  Whig 
and  Democratic  parties  should  be  sundered,  and 
such  simple  issue  presented  ?  It  needs  no  extraor¬ 
dinary  prophetic  vision  to  answer  that  question, 
and  see  that  such  anti-slavery  associations  would 
and  must  then  necessarily  become  the  predominant 
political  organizations  in  the  North,  and  would 
soon  be  in  the  ascendant  in  every  State  north  of 
Mason  and  Dixon’s  line.  With  such  parties  con¬ 
trolling  at  the  North,  does  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  suppose  that  the  security  and  permanence 
of  the  slavery  institutions  of  the  South  will  be  in¬ 
creased  and  established?  If  he  does,  and  he  and 
other  southern  gentleman  desire  to  force  such 
issue  upon  us,  all  we  can  say  is,  beware  lest  you 
discover  too  late  to  benefit  you  that  your  safety  in 
fact  depends  upon  the  prominence  and  interest  of 
the  other  great  political  issues. 

But,  sir,  we  may  be  told  by  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  that  he  does  not  desire  to  bring  about  a 
disruption  of  the  two  great  political  parties,  but 
his  object  is  simply  to  purge  them  of  all  such 
members  as  will  not  subscribe  to  an  act  of  perpet¬ 
ual  moral  and  political  amnesty  towards  slavery, 
or,  as  he  would  express  it,  the  wisdom  and  finality 
of  the  compromise  acts  in  all  their  parts  and  de- 


tails.  Such  recusant  members  only  are  to  be  read 
out  of  the  party,  and  virtually  disfranchised,  so 
far  as  advancement  or  connection  with  the  party 
is  concerned,  as  are  not  healthy  and  sound  on  the 
slavery  issue.  Such  bull  of  excommunication  is 
to  be  issued  for  them;  and  its  effect  will  be  to 
drive  those  men  with  such  convictions  of  right 
and  wrong  from  the  bosom  of  a  party  whose  in¬ 
terest  and  policy  have  been,  as  farjxs  possible,  to 
suppress  agitation,  into  full  communion  and  fel¬ 
lowship  with  the  anti-slavery  and  liberty  organi¬ 
zations;  thus  to  aid  in  swelling  the  notes  of 
agitation  and  alarm,  which  need  only  the  chorus 
of  numbers  to  make  the  South  to  quake  and  trem¬ 
ble  for  the  perpetuity  of  her  peculiar  institutions. 
If  the  South  desire  thus  to  repudiate  the  action  of 
the  North,  and  force  the  increase  of  the  anti-sla¬ 
very  organizations,  so  be  it.  Let  them  take  the 
responsibility,  as  they  are  the  ones  who  are  to 
bear  the  burden. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  went  into  a  par¬ 
tial  history  of  the  Whig  party  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  in  order  to  exhibit  his  views  of  their 
principles  upon  the  subject  of  -the  compromise 
measures,  and  thereby  justify  his  repudiation  of 
the  Whig  nominee.  The  gentleman  thus  acting 
upon  the  basis  that  General  Scott’s  principles  are 
to  be  judged  of  and  measured  by  the  principles 
and  doctrines  of  some  of  his  supporters.  It  is 
true,  that  General  Scott  is  the  favorite  candidate 
of  the  Whigs  of  New  York;  but  it  is  not  true  that 
he  is  to  be  held  accountable  for  all  their  acts.  It 
is  with  General  Scott  in  this  respect  in  the  North 
as  in  the  South.  He  is  the  favorite  candidate  of 
all  Whigs  in  the  South  who  are  Whigs;  but  he  is 
not  responsible  for  all  their  opinions  and  acts  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  or  any  other  subject.  It 
is  true,  that  the  Whigs  of  New  York,  in  State 
conventions,  and  in  the  Legislature  of  their  State, 
anterior  to  the  passage  of  the  compromise  acts, 
did  pass  resolutions  at  different  times,  declaring 
their  opposition  to  the  extension  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  these 
points,  among  others,  they  differed  in  sentiment 
from  their  brethren  of  the  southern  states;  Such 
differences  of  opinion  extending  to  both  political 
parties,  and  throughout  the  Union;  and  the  reso¬ 
lutions  and  action  on  the  part  of  the  North  on  the 
subject,  gave  rise  to  the  proceedings  in  Congress 
which  resulted  in  the  passage  of  the  several  com¬ 
promise  acts.  It  is  true,  that  immediately  after 
their  passage  the  Whigs  of  New  York,  assembled 
in  convention,  refused  to  pass  resolutions  giving 
their  approval  to  those  acts,  and  declaring  them 
wise  and  right.  But,  sir,  I  allege  that  they  have 
never  denied  their  validity. 

It  would  be  deemed  singular  to  judge  of  a  man ’s 
adherence  to  a  contract  after  it  was  executed,  by 
what  he  might  have  said  before  the  contract  was 
made  or  the  terms  agreed  upon.  Equally  strange 
is  it  to  pretend  to  judge  of  the  position  of  the 
Whig  party  of  the  State  of  New  York  upon  the 
compromise  acts  by  their  resolves  anterior  to  its 
being  dreamed  of.  But  the  Whigs  of  New  York 
have  been  unwilling  to  pass  resolutions  or  vote 
for  resolutions  declaring  those  compromise  acts, 
like  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  irre- 
pealable  and  unalterable.  So  they  have,  and  I  am 
sure  they  never  will  pass  such  resolutions  about 
any  laws.  Laws  that  are  irrepealable  need  no  | 


such  resolution;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  ab¬ 
surd  to  pass  such  resolution  in  relation  to  laws 
which  are,  like  the  fugitive  slave  law,  confessedly 
repealable.  Such  resolution  would  in  itself  be 
the  most  effectual  wry  of  opening  agitation  for 
the  repeal  of  the  la  v.  Such  position  of  the 
Whigs  of  New  Y<  rk,  therefore,  augurs  no  want 
of  obedience  to  the  laws.  I  have  ever  found  that 
those  who  are  Ion§  est  and  loudest  in  their  profes¬ 
sions  are  the  least  to  b  relied  on  and  the  first  to 
falter.  The  firmness  of  the  New  York  Whigs,  in 
refusing  to  join  in  resolving  a  constitutional  ab¬ 
surdity,  is  the  best  guarantee  of  their  practical 
good  sense  and  judgment,  and  of  their  adherence 
to  principle  rather  than  to  empty  professions  and 
idle  pretenses. 

Again,  the  Whig  party  of  the  State  of  New 
York  is  to  be  repudiated,  because,  forsooth,  Wil¬ 
liam  H.  Seward  is  of  them,  and  been  honored 
by  them  with  the  high  office  which  he  now  fills 
with  so  much  distinction  and  ability.  And  where, 
I  will  here  ask,  could  the  Whigs  of  New  York, 
either  within  the  confines  of  their  State,  or,  I  might 
say,  of  the  United  States,  have  selected  a  man  who 
would  have  filled  the  office,  and  discharged  its 
i  duties,  with  more  distinguished  ability  than  that 
Senator?  But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
he  holds  sentiments  adverse  to  slavery,  adverse  to 
its  extension,  adverse  to  the  increase  of  its  power, 

!  and  in  favor  of  its  eradication.  So  he  does,  sir; 
and  his  feelings  on  those  subjects,  it  is  well  un¬ 
derstood,  have  undergone  no  change.  And  it  did 
not  need  the  quotation  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia,  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Seward, 
delivered  before  his  election  to  the  Senate,  at 
Cleveland,  to  inform  the  country  of  that  fact.  But 
his  speeches  and  his  acts  show  that  he  holds  those 
opinions  in  subservience  to  the  Constitution.  He 
has,  it  is  true,  frequently,  and  in  no  measured 
terms,  expressed  his  conviction  that  slavery  was 
erroneous  in  principle,  and  injurious  to  the  wel¬ 
fare  and  prosperity  of  the  nation,  and  the  stability 
of  its  free  institutions.  He  has  expressed  an  anx¬ 
ious  desire  for  its  eradication;  but  not  by  violence 
or  fanaticism,  or  by  unconstitutional  means,  and 
only  by  the  acts  of  those  States  which  have  con¬ 
trol  over  the  subject.  He  has,  as  he  did  in  his 
speech  from  which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
quoted  largely,  urged  upon  the  opponents  of  sla¬ 
very  at  the  North,  that  they  should,  under  the  pa¬ 
ternal  roof,  in  churches,  and  in  schools,  “  incul¬ 
cate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of 
man;”  inculcate  the  principle  that  Congress  can 
debate,  that  Congress  can  mediate,  that  future 
generations  might  be  bought ,  and  given  up  to  free¬ 
dom,  and  thus  inculcate  “  in  the  spirit  of  modera¬ 
tion  and  benevolence,  and  not  of  retaliation  and 
fanaticism.”  Surely  the  inculcation  of  the  love  of 
freedom,  and  the  equal  rights  of  man,  in  the  spirit 
of  moderation  and  benevolence,  at  the  fireside,  in 
'  churches,  and  at  schools,  cannot  be  treason  in 
this  land  of  liberty,  universal  education,  and  free 
institutions. 

But,  sir,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  after 
quoting  largely  from  that  speech,  states  that, 
within  three  months  after  its  delivery,  Mr.  Sew¬ 
ard  was  elected  by  the  Whigs  of  New  York  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  Slates,  and  that“  on  the 
‘  5th  of  March,  1849,  he  took  his  seat  in  that  body 
‘  to  advance  the  great  mission  for  which  he  was 
‘  elected;  and  from  that  duy  to  the  present  has  he 


6 


‘  stood  forward,  before  the  country,  the  imper- 
*  sonation  of  every  sentiment  hostile  to  the  inter¬ 
ests  and  institutions  of  the  South.” 

Sir,  that  Mr.  Seward  was  thus  elected  by  the 
Whigs  of  New  York,  and  that  he  took  his  seat  to 
discharge  the  responsible  duties  or  mission  of  a 
United  States  Senator,  is  true.  That  he  has  been 
faithful  to  that  mission,  and  to  his  own  convic¬ 
tions,  and  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  people 
of  New  York,  is  also  true.  When  was  Senator 
Seward  unfaithful  to  any  mission,  or  any  trust, 
or  any  principle?  It  is  his  fidelity  which  marks 
the  character  of  the  man,  and  has  given  him  the 
confidence  of  the  people.  But,  sir,  in  the  allega¬ 
tion  that  that  Senator  has,  since  he  took  his  seat 
in  the  Senate,  “  stood  forward  before  the  country 
the  impersonation  of  every  sentiment  hostile  to 
the  interests  and  institutions  of  the  South,”  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  is  greatly  mistaken,  and 
has  grossly  misconceived  the  position  and  conduct 
of  that  Senator. 

We,  of  the  State  of  New  York,  are  familiar 
with  a  letter  of  that  Senator,  which  appeared 
about  the  time  of  his  election  to  the  Senate,  sub¬ 
sequently  found  its  way  into  the  public  prints,  and  j 
was  widely  published  and  circulated  throughout  the 
State.  In  that  letter  he  substantially  stated,  that  as 
to  slavery  he  should  never  be  found  its  defender  or 
apologist;  nor  should  he  unnecessarily  or  unrea-  ! 
sonably  agitate  against  it;  that  whenever  he  met  j 
it  as  a  practical  subject  of  legislation,  he  should  ; 
discuss  it  like  every  other  subject,  fully,  frankly, 
and  fearlessly;  and  that  whenever  it  did  not  come  i 
before  him  in  that  way,  he  should  leave  it  as  he  ; 
should  every  other  subject  that  was  foreign  to  the 
subject  in  hand. 

Such  was  the  course  of  conduct  which  he  seemed  I 
to  have  laid  down  for  himself,  and  which  it  is  pre-  j 
sumed,  and  his  course  in  the  Senate  proves,  it  was 
his  intention  to  follow. 

Immediately,  however,  upon  his  introduction 
into  the  Senate,  Mr.  Seward  was  assailed  by 
southern  Senators  for  his  opinions  and  sentiments 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  attacks  of  a  like 
character  werecontinued  and  repeated  almostdaily. 
Although  his  friends  and  others  were  impatient 
and  urgent  for  his  reply,  the  subject  of  slavery  j 
was  not  practically  in  question,  and  he  was  silent, 
and  chose,  for  a  long  time,  to  let  the  southern 
Senators  assume  to  themselves  the  credit  of  the 
slavery  agitation,  and  listened  to  their  attacks  wTith 
dignified  silence.  When  the  slavery  question  was 
presented  by  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Clay,  and 
the  bills  embodied  therein  before  the  Senate,  and 
the  compromise  measures,  as  reported  in  the  Sen¬ 
ate,  were  under  consideration,  he  met  the  ques¬ 
tions,  each  and  all  of  them,  as  it  was  his  duty  to 
do,  and  gave  the  expression  of  his  views  upon 
them.  He  was  willing  and  desirous  to  “  vote  for 
the  admission  of  California  directly,  v/ithout  con¬ 
ditions,  without  qualifications,  and  without  com¬ 
promise;”  but  he  was  unwilling,  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  freedom  in  California,  thus  offered, 
to  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  southern  States,  for 
the  extension  and  perpetuation  of  slavery  in  the 
other  Territories.  That  compromise,  dove-tailed 
into  a  single  measure,  was  defeated;  but  subse¬ 
quently,  a  series  of  separate  and  distinct  acts  were 
passed,  together  covering  the  same  grounds  as  the 
original  compromise  proposition,  and  received  the 
Executive  sanction.  Since  the  passage  of  those 


laws,  when  and  on  what  occasion  has  he  idly  or 
unnecessarily  agitated  the  slavery  question  in  the 
Senate?  He  knows  better  howto  promote  the 
cause  of  freedom — better  how  to  promote  the 
varied  interests  of  this  great  Republic.  The  de¬ 
bates  and  minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate, 
since  the  passage  of  those  laws,  may  be  searched, 
and  will  be  searched  in  vain,  to  find  the  record  of 
any  voluntary  action  or  unnecessary  agitation  on 
the  part  of  that  Senator  for  the  disturbance  of 
those  laws,  or  for  any  voluntary  or  unnecessary 
agitation  of  slavery  before  or  after  their  passage. 
Of  their  merits  he  is  understood  to  think  now  as 
he  thought  before  their  passage;  and  I  suppose 
that  he  considers  them  like  all  other  laws  to  be 
executed  by  the  Executive,  and  yet,  nevertheless, 
subject  to  examination,  scrutiny,  amendment,  and 
repeal,  if  found  unwise,  defective,  or  improper. 
As  for  agitation,  whose  course  in  either  House  is 
ess  obnoxious  to  such  a  charge?  While  the  south¬ 
ern  press,  and  the  northern  press  in  southern  in¬ 
terests,  sustained  by  the  agitators  from  the  South, 
have  been  loud  and  long  in  his  condemnation, 
there  is  no  man  who  has  censured  others  less,  and 
at  the  same  time  borne  the  unmerited  censure  of 
others  more  patiently.  Who  is  there,  who  has 
spoken  at  all  in  the  Senate,  who  has  spoken  less 
on  the  slavery  question?  Who  is  there  who  has 
spoken  more,  who  has  spoken  more  nationally  on 
all,  nay,  more  nationally  on  that  very  subject? 
It  is  proof  of  this,  that  no  one  of  his  associates, 
with  the  Globe  on  their  tables,  ever  quotes  any  of 
his  speeches  in  the  Senate  to  justify  their  assaults. 
His  speeches,  in  respect  to  their  national  char¬ 
acter  and  patriotic  sentiments,  are  models  for  im¬ 
itation  and  instruction  ! 

But  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  at  a  loss  for 
proof  in  his  senatorial  action  to  sustain  the  charge 
of  agitation  and  fomenting  resistance  to  the  laws, 
is  driven  to  extracts  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Seward, 
dated  in  April,  1851,  in  reply  to  an  invitation  re¬ 
ceived  by  him  to  attend  aconvention  of  “  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Massachusetts  in  favor  of  constitutional  op¬ 
position  to  the  fugitive  slave  law.”  In  that  letter, 
Mr.  Seward  declines  attending  the  convention, 
and  declares  that  he  has  “  earnestly  desired  not  to 
mingle  in  the  popular  discussion  of  the  measures 
of  the  last  Congress.”  But  being  requested  in 
the  letter  of  invitation,  to  give  his  opinions  on  the 
fugitive  slave  law,  he  took  occasion  to  declare  that 
the  opinions  expressed  by  him  in  debate  had  under¬ 
gone  no  change,  and  to  repeat  some  of  the  positions 
which  he  had  assumed  and  expressed  in  his  speech 
in  the  Senate  against  that  law.  This,  as  a  good  citi¬ 
zen,  and  as  a  public  man,  he  had  a  right,  and  it 
was  proper  for  him  to  do.  He  counseled  none  to 
the  disobedience  or  resistance  of  the  law;  but  on 
the  contrary,  near  the  close  of  the  letter,  used  the 
following  patriotic  language  and  counsel  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  future  action  upon  those  laws: 

“  Whatever  is  irrepealable  in  any  of  the  acts  of  the  lata 
Congress,  no  one  will  be  mad  enough  to  attempt  to  repeal. 
Whatever  is  repealable  in  those  acts,  and  whatever  shall 
be  repealable  in  future  acts  of  Congress,  whether  it  shall 
favor  freedom  or  slavery,  no  matter  under  what  circum¬ 
stances,  nor  with  what  auspices,  nor  with  what  solemni¬ 
ties  it  may  have  been  adopted,  must  abide  the  trial  of  ex¬ 
perience,  of  reason,  and  of  truth.  It  is  only  in  this  way 
that  the  Constitution  can  be  maintained,  and  the  Union  can 
be  saved.  Its  security  consists  in  the  adaptation  to  the  phys¬ 
ical  and  moral  necessities  of  the  broad  and  ever-extending 
empire  which  it  protects  and  defends,  and  in  the  facility 
with  whichj  without  violence ,  or  sudden  change,  errors  of 


7 


administration  can  be  corrected,  and  new  exigencies  can  be 
met,  so  that  the  State,  free  or  slaveholding,  which  may  at 
any  time  be  least  favored,  will  be  at  all  times  safer  under 
this  Government,  when  worst  administered,  than  it  would 
be  under  any  other,  however  wisely  administered,  or  favor¬ 
ably  conducted.” 

It  has,  at  times,  not,  I  believe,  by  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Virginia,  but  by  others,  been  urged  as 
an  accusation  against  that  Senator,  that  he  has 
been  bail  for  persons  charged  with  the  act  of  res¬ 
cue.  So  he  has;  and  the  law  recognizes  the  right, 
it  recognizes  the  propriety  of  citizens  becoming 
bail  for  the  accused.  Until  conviction  the  pre¬ 
sumption  of  law  is  in  favor  of  innocence,  and  there¬ 
fore  it  encourages  the  bailment  of  prisoners  before 
trial.  Such  acts  of  the  Senator  have  been  in  strict 
accordance  with  one  of  his  leading  and  openly- 
advocated  principles:  “  that  every  man  has  aright 
to  do  for  the  cause  of  humanity  that  which  no  law  for¬ 
bids.  ’  ’ 

Sir,  I  will  unhesitatingly  venture  the  assertion, 
that  there  scarcely  ever  was  a  man  more  unjustly 
accused,  and  without  just  cause  more  violently- 
assailed,  than  that  Senator  from  New  York.  A 
systematic  effort  appears  to  have  been  started  at 
his  first  entrance  into  the  Senate,  by  accusations 
and  misrepresentations  of  actions  and  motives,  to 
prevent  the  influence  he  was  sure  to  gain;  and 
with  so  much  vehemence  was  the  war  carried  on, 
and  with  so  much  boldness  of  assertion,  that  in 
many  sections  of  the  country  the  falsehood  gained 
the  credence  of  truth.  While  all  this  was  pro¬ 
gressing,  the  Senator  went  on  in  the  even  tenor  of 
his  way,  and  in  the  honest  and  faithful  discharge 
of  his  public  duties,  carrying  out  and  fulfilling  the 
course  of  action  he  had  laid  down  for  himself. 
While  others  discussed  and  agitated  the  slavery 
question,  he  remained  silent.  While  others  and 
southern  Senators  discussed  the  value  of  the 
Union,  gave  prominence  to,  and  created  excite¬ 
ment  upon  questions  which  they  professed  it  was 
of  vital  interest  should  be  quieted,  he  was  engaged 
in  advocating  and  urging  the  passage  of  measures 
for  the  promotion  of  our  national  prosperity  and 
greatness,  and  securing  the  Union  against  all  real 
danger.  I  believe,  sir,  that  the  time  is  coming, 
and  not  far  distant,  when,  having  outlived  the  mis¬ 
representations  of  his  opponents,  not  only  the  tal¬ 
ents,  but  also  the  position  and  the  course  of  that 
Senator  will  be  fully  appreciated  by  the  country. 

Sir,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and  those 
who  sympathize  with  him,  may  repudiate  Gen¬ 
eral  Scott  because  he  is  supported  by  northern 
Whigs,  and,  in  doing  that,  they  may  enter  into 
the  support  of  General  Pierce  in  cordial  coopera¬ 
tion  and  fellowship  with  the  Van  Burens  and  their 
associates  of  the  North.  It  is  their  right,  if  they 
choose  so  to  do,  to  repudiate  political  association 
with  northern  Whigs,  and  enter  into  full  political 
communion  and  fellowship  with  John  Van  Buren, 
the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  Democratic  party 
in  New  York,  who,  at  Cleveland,  in  1848,  used 
the  following  most  emphatic  language: 

“  I  am ,  however ,  the  unmitigated  enemy  of  slavery,  and 
would  have  it  abolished  without  delay.  J  say,  there¬ 
fore,  for  myself— and  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  speaking 
for  myself  alone — that,  let  what  will  come,/  shall,  under 
no  necessity  whatever,  support  a  man  who  does  not  be¬ 
lieve  SLAVERY  TO  BE  AN  UNMIXED  CURSE,  and  whj  U'ill 
not,  by  virtue  of  his  oflice,  use  all  constitutional  power  to 
abolish  it.” 

And  who,  also,  at  the  great  mass  meeting  at 
Syracuse  in  J 849,  declared,  as  the  special  leader 


and  champion  of  the  united  Democracy,  that  they 
“  expected  to  make  the  Democratic  party  of  this  State 
‘  [New  York]  the  great  anti-slavery  party  of 
‘  this  State,  and  through  it,  to  make  the  Demo- 
‘  cratic  party  of  the  United  States  the  great  anti- 
‘  slavery  party  of  the  United  States.” 

And  who,  also,  in  his  letter  dated  the  4th  of 
August,  1851,  written  in  reply  to  the  invitation 
sent  him  to  attend  the  Massachusetts  convention  of 
those  opposed  to  the  fugitive  slave  law,  declared 
and  argued  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  was  uncon¬ 
stitutional,  “  because  Congress  had  no  power  to 
legislate  on  the  subject;”  because,  conceding  the 
legislative  power,  “it  did  not  give  the  person 
seized  a  trial  by  jury  at  the  place  where  he  is 
seized,  and  before  he  is  put  in  the  custody  of  the 
claimant;”  and  because  its  provisions  “  intrepidly 
defy  the  provisions  of  the  United  States  Constitu¬ 
tion,  which  declare  that  no  person  shall  be  de¬ 
prived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due 
process  of  law;”  and  who,  also,  in  such  letter,  in 
striking  contrast  with  the  patriotic  suggestions  of 
the  Senator  from  New  York  above  quoted,  thus 
urged  and  encouraged  resistance  to  the  law: 

“  But  I  have  referred  altogether  to  its  [the  fugitive  slave 
law]  unconstitutionality.  How  are  its  consequences  to  be 
:  avoided?  So  far  as  this  is  to  be  done  by  legislation,  it 
seems  to  me  the  remedy  is  with  the  State  Legislature.  An 
excellent  bill  for  that  purpose  has  been  introduced  into  our 
Assembly  by  Mr.  Coffin,  of  Otsego,  and  1  trust  it  may  be¬ 
come  a  law.  It  does  not  assume  to  legislate  for  fugitive 
slaves.  It  protects the/ree  inhabitantsofour  own  State,  and 
presumes  all  the  inhabitants  to  be  free.  Other  States  will, 
of  course,  legislate  as  they  may  deem  wise.  In  the  mean 
time,  every  individual  should  determine  for  himself  what 
respect  he  will  pay  to  the  act  of  Congress  in  question. 
There  is  a  distinction  between  an  unjust  and  an  unconsti¬ 
tutional  law.  The  former  must  be  obeyed  until  it  is  re¬ 
pealed.  Disobedience  to  the  latter  is  frequently  the  only 
mode  of  testing  its  unconstitutionality.” 

Such  are  the  southern  sentiments  held  by  the 
leading  Democratic  supporters  of  Messrs.  Pierce 
and  King  in  the  State  of  New  York.  It  is,  I  re¬ 
peat,  the  right  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
and  his  associates,  to  repudiate  their  former  Whig 
allies,  and  select  such  new  Democratic  political 
associates;  and  in  doing  that, it  is  proper  that  they 
should  reap  a  fair  degree  of  consolation  in  the 
perusal  and  due  consideration  of  the  choice  and 
j  select  paragraphs  and  sentiments  put  forth  in  the 
organs  of  the  Free-Soil  Democracy  of  New  York. 
It  is  peculiarly  right  and  proper,  also,  that  they 
should  read  and  ponder  with  cure  and  approbation 
the  declarations  of  such  of  the  organs  of  their  new 
political  allies,  as,  like  the  Buffalo  Republic,  follow¬ 
ing  in  the  wake  of  the  Albany  Atlas,  and  the 
New  York  Evening  Post,  declare  that — 

“  We  affirm  that  we  and  the  Republic  cling  to  our  Freo- 
Soil  principles,  and  cherish  them  as  the  apple  of  our  eye. 
And  we  not  only  cling  to  them  and  cherish  them,  but  de¬ 
fend  them  as  manfully  as  we  can,  whenever  an  enemy 
worthy  of  notice  presumes  to  lift  his  pen  or  wag  his  tongue 
against  them.” 

******* 

“  But,  say  some  of  the  grumblers,  by  supporting  Pierce 
and  King,  you  are  supporting  the  platform  which  wasmado 
when  they  were  nominated,  and  which  you  repudiated. 
We  deny  that  we  ever  repudiated  the  platform.  We  re¬ 
pudiated  THE  ROTTEN  PLANKS  THAT  WERE  FOOLISHLY 
PUT  IN  TO  WIDEN  IT;  AND  WE  REPUDIATE  THEM  STILL. 

We  say  the  old  Democratic  platform  was  wide  enough, 
and  good  enough,  and  the  meddlesome  fellows  who  put  in 
those  rotten  plunks  did  it  without  authority,  and  deserve  to 
be  booted  by  those  who  employed  them  for  meddling  with 
that  which  was  none  of  their  business.  We  support  Pierce 
and  King,  nnd  recognize  ns  ours  the  old  Democratic  plat¬ 
form—  not  the  rotten  planks.” 


Sir,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and  his  asso¬ 
ciates,  in  thus  forming  new  political  associations, 
repudiating  Whigs  on  account  of  alleged  Free- 
Soil  principles,  and  taking  to  their  embrace  and 
confidence  the  Free-Soil  Democracy ,  are,  undoubt¬ 
edly,  exercising  their  unquestionable  rights  as 
freemen,  and  they  are,  of  course,  the  proper  judges 
of  their  own  consistency.  It  is,  however,  equally 


our  right,  as  northern  Whigs,  to  support  the  can¬ 
didates  of  our  choice;  and,  if  such  support  has 
the  effect  to  drive  off  others  to  the  opposition,  we 
can  only  regret  that  our  companionship  is  deemed 
so  disreputable,  and  then  enter  into  the  canvass 
with  increased  zeal,  and  a  bold  determination  that 
our  candidates  shall  be  successful. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 


